Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 5

proposal
Currently we have:
 * Tyson has claimed that, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)".[59] Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."[60]

To (adding proper cites of course)
 * ''In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)".   Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrectly used by Tyson misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven dead Challenger astronauts, and  that the full context did not refer to Muslims at all, but was

"'In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.'"
 * Tyson on Sep 26, 2014, defended his use of the quotation on Facebook: "I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere -- surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged."  and then on Sep 27 he emended  his position stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote." 

This avoids any accusatory tone, or any use of "but it was found by extreme right wing nuts" or the like - sticking to straightforward reportage of the incident. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an embellishment of an anecdote requires coverage in a BLP. But what is notable, is the brouhaha that this embellishment has caused in right-wing media. So if we are to include anything about this misquote, is that aspect, as it should be obvious to anyone what are the reason this has become a fabricated controversy. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What an interesting view of a straightforward section - I think you might be evincing the "we can not allow anything from extreme right wing folks in Wikipedia" or the like? That you find this all a "fabricated controversy" would appear to mean you think that Tyson did not misuse or misrecall the Bush quote, but that horse has left the barn as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Oh, no. He obviously did misquote, but what is notable is not the misquote, but the over-reaction to it by right-wing media. That's what I mean. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So NGT mis-speaks and mis-attributes a quote by GWB it and the only controversy is that the right is pissed about it? That is a good argument.  Arzel (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the proposed edit above. I recomend we change "seven dead astronauts" to "the seven Challenger astronauts" With a wlink of course.  Also, i think saying that the quote was "incorrectly used" implies that the quote was what GWB actaully said, but that NdGT should not have used the quote in the context that he did.  I think we should change the line to "Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrect". Bonewah (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the proposal above is far too long. — TPX 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Counterproposal:

''Criticism

Tyson was accused of misquoting President George W. Bush in a post 9/11 speech in a manner that caused the President to sound religiously divisive.(ref) Tyson later apologized and withdrew the quote.(ref) Objective3000 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Grossly inadequate, and seems to totally ignore Tyson's responses to the accusations. The speech was not "Post 9/11" as Tyson had used it, was not about 9/11, and made no religiously divisive claims. Tyson has not "withdrawn" the quote, nor did he "apologize" (to whom?) - he simply thanked people for finding the correct quote.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Although he has not apologized, he has stated his intention to do so https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/516238870514388995 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The criticism was that Tyson suggested it was in a post 9/11 speech and it was religiously divisive. That's the point. If you want to include Tyson's dismissive responses to the Federalist, would you also include their nonsense about beheading, crucifixion, etc? If this is to be included at all, it should be "just the facts ma'am".Objective3000 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Worthless. You can't talk about the section without including the quotes.  Also, as Gaijin has stated, he has not appologized as of yet.  Arzel (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is much better. Concise and to the point. For the time being, we can say Tyson acknowledged the error, instead of apologising for it (which he intends to do shortly). — TPX 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The counterproposal fails for the reasons enumerated by Collect. The proposal is a bit long. Can we consider removing the initial defense by Tyson?

Suggested wording:
 * In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)". Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrectly used by Tyson, misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven Challenger astronauts, and that the full context did not refer to Muslims at all, but was:


 * "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."


 * Tyson agreed, stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote."

No, no, no! It's absolutely insane to provide more coverage to this than to Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey or declassifying Pluto as a planet which is still in the news 8 years later. Will this quote thing still be in the news 8 years later? It's barely in the news now. For heaven's sake, Tyson's stance on Pluto forced 75 years of astronomy textbooks to be rewritten! Sheesh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pluto, Schmuto, there are axes to grind here! What I find fascinating about this whole dispute is that the sort of loose recollection of facts which Tyson displayed here is quite common among commentators, it is hard to predict which become picked up on.  But its day to day sniping at best.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like a lot of words for something that STILL has not hit a single national paper or network. Objective3000 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't delete Pokemon articles because 19 century architecture is undercovered, so it starts out as a false argument. Why are you bringing up Pluto? If Tyson did have a role in it, the role wasn't big enough to get even a mention in Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. I read it, and while it is possible it slipped my recollection, I did a Google book search and it states his name does not appear. If you would like to expand the coverage of Pluto's status, be my guest, you've been around long enough to know about Other stuff exists.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a very good search as Tyson wrote The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet. Unlike the current subject, Tyson’s work in this area was covered by major papers and networks. Otherstuff doesn’t apply as we are talking about two parts of the same article and their relative importance. Objective3000 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have misread my post. I didn't claim to have done a general search, I did a search in the book I own, written by the person who is one of the major players in the result. According to Tyson "All I did was drive the getaway car," he claims, and that the killer was actually astronomer Mike Brown, author of How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, this was barely touched by Reliable Sources (so far). It doesn't warrant an entire section-size explanation. It can probably be two or maybe three sentences if we give a general statement of the accusation, an his acknowledgement. Note: Tyson has indicated he's planning a bigger statement with an apology.... it's very possible that this will trigger significantly more news coverage. More coverage would warrant more detail. Alsee (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we limit the discussion here to proposed edits and keep the question of "should this even be included at all" to other talk page sections? I get that there are still numerous editors who oppose inclusion of this material, but there are also, presumably, numerous editors who, like me, find the question of inclusion or exclusion easier to decide if we can see what would be included.  Bonewah (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rereading this section i see that editors are objecting to the length of quotes, not their inclusion per se. Bonewah (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the complete Bush quote should be included. This is the Tyson bio, not the Bush bio. Removing that, and simply referencing it would reduce the wording materially.
 * A reminder that the RfC upthread is on the issue of inclusion or not, please weigh in there is you want to support or oppose inclusion (and havent already) This section is for the crafting of the wording that neutrally summarizes the incident, should it be concluded that it deserves inclusion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New proposal
The initial proposal by collect is ridiculously excessive. Here's my proposal::
 * In some of his lectures Tyson stated that, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars."[59] After being questioned on the accuracy of the quote[1] Tyson commented in his Facebook profile "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote. Perhaps that's a measure of how upset I was in both cases."[Tyson's FB post]
 *  [1]: the most reliable source available for this, ie: no thefederalist.com. 

Anything else would be WP:UNDUE. I'm not even sure it should be mentioned at all given that no major media outlets picked up on this in spite of some right-wing media's efforts to make this an issue. Regards. Gaba (talk)  18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better. Objective3000 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Managing to imply Tyson was absolutely correct in what he said the quote was about (an attack on Muslims), that the quote was correctly worded with only the event date being wrong,, and failing to note that the actual quote is from Isaiah?    What an interesting view. Collect (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)I see at least two problems here. One, the proposed edit does not mention that the other incident was the shuttle explosion, so the line "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote." is cryptic. Two, the proposed edit makes no mention of the critic's claim that Tyson wrongly portrayed GWB as anti-Muslim, the ""distinguish we from they (Muslims)" part.  Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * and the proposal is in line with the sources. Your own thoughts on what Tyson omitted or how he should've responded or the "implications" of what he commented are almost as irrelevant as the whole "incident" itself. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW you aver that sources state Tyson did not in any way misquote Bush or draw wrong inferences from what Bush actually said, only that he got the dates wrong. Right?   Really? Collect (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You need other words? regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)IM not commenting on how Tyson should have responded or the implications (with or without the ""), im only commenting on the proposed edit. Again the problem is that the proposed edit fails to mention Tyson's critics main complaint, that Tyson incorrectly portrayed GWB as anti-Muslim using a quote that GWB never actually said. Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Only GWB did make other statements, in the same time period, in the same vein, that would suggest just that. Rationale for the Iraq War. Now, I don't believe GWB is anti-Muslim. But, it's hard to take this as slanderous (as stated in the original proposal) when GWB has, in fact, made like statements. Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does the Rationale for the Iraq War article have to do with this? Did Tyson cite something from that article? Did any of his critics? Not that im aware.  Again, the core argument that his critics made is that Tyson wrongly portrayed GWB as anti-muslim using a quote that GWB never actually said.  The fact that GWB has said some things that you, personally, think are in the same vein is totally irrelevant.  Bonewah (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because the reason some sources claim this is important is because, in their words, it is "a vicious, gratuitous slander". But, how can it be if GWB did make statements along the same lines? Objective3000 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not going down that WP:OR path. Its not our job to refute what some of Tyson's critics believe with statements that you believe are "along the same lines".  Bonewah (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked to a WP article. This is hardly WP:OR. Keep in mind the lack of RS in any of this. Objective3000 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Your comments did not apply to me. Mystic55 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal
My proposal is to just delete the entire thing. It's not important enough to warrant inclusion and we're not a not a news site. It barely registers a blip in reliable sources. This is not the way to write an encyclopedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How about,"Tyson admitting to accidentally misquoting Bush about the naming of stars after an anonymous conservative wikipedia editor drummed up support on several conservative news sites. It is believed this is an attempt to discredit him by AGW Denial advocates such as the Heartland Institute due to comments he made on the critically acclaimed show Cosmos." Mystic55 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hasnt there been enough acrimony on this subject already? Yes, we get it, you both strongly oppose any inclusion of this material.  Do you have to flood the talk page with snark to prove that? Bonewah (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't snark. This is the beginning of an obvious process to discredit Tyson as denoted on a liberal site, making it a notable issue.  The attempt to sway conservative commentators has, in fact, made the attempt to sway them and discredit Tyson notable and worthy of inclusion, and failure to do so takes the context of the addition of the criticism OUT of context. It is noteworthy because the commentator made it so. Mystic55 (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014
 * Ok, if you are being serious, then i totally oppose your proposed edits as obviously and laughably POV pushing as well as WP:OR. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify how including mention that a 'misquote' that was included in the article with a POV agenda isn't actually WP:NOTABLE if not more notable than the misquote? Mystic55 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont understand what you are asking. Bonewah (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am asking that if the quote is included, the reason WHY the quote matters be included as well because it is more noteworthy as denoted by reliable sources. Mystic55 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a proposed edit or change to one of the given proposals, feel free to put it out. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already thrown my weight behind the proposal mentioned below which includes the controversy and brujajah on conservative websites with regards to the quote. Anyone who cares about the source will then understand its inclusion upon reading the paragraph. Mystic55 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't even be mentioned given the little to no relevance it had in reliable media but I guess the outcome of the current RfC will decide that. The extent and content of what gets included, in the case the RfC turns out is should be included at all, is another issue altogether. Regards. Gaba (talk)  19:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Contextual Counter-proposal
I believe that including the context is important to indicate the notable nature of the event. I suggest:

''In June 2008, during prepared remarks, Tyson used an anecdote about then-President Bush to illustrate what Tyson considered widespread scientific illiteracy. In his presentation, which included slides and photos, Tyson attributed the following quote to Bush - "Our God is the God who named the stars" - and stated that the quote had been made in the context of the 9/11 attacks and had been used by Bush to distinguish between Christians and Muslims. Tyson held that this quote was an example of scientific illiteracy due to the large contributions of Arabs to astronomy, particularly highlighting the number of stars with Arabic names.''

''In 2014, a conservative website published an article alleging several false or attributed statements by Tyson, including the Bush quote above, which could not be independently sourced. The website suggested instead that a passage from a 2003 speech by Bush in the wake of the Colombia disaster had been mis-contextualized by Tyson. Tyson initially insisted that the quote was accurate in that the original speech referred to differences between Muslims and Christians, and was in the immediate wake of 9/11. Controversy over the provenance of the quote and its potential reflection on Tyson's integrity garnered even more attention. Eventually Tyson acknowledge that the 2003 speech was the likely source.''

Edited to put 2nd para in italics And obviously references will have to be added before posting. end edit.

I realize this is wordy, but it does have the advantage of being complete and (IMO) non-inflammatory.Kerani (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that context is important here. Im not sure i agree with the line "Controversy over the provenance of the quote and its potential reflection on Tyson's integrity garnered even more attention. " Otherwise, your proposed edits are pretty good. Bonewah (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)Also, i think the line "published an article alleging several false or attributed statements by Tyson" should say mis-attributed. In the next sentence, i think you should add a "they claimed" or something before "which could not be independently sourced" to make it clear that the sourcing question wasnt totally resolved.  That part is a bit mooted in light of Tyson's acknowledgement, i think. Bonewah (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the context of why the quote is included in the article, or why any one cares about the 'misquote' is more notable than the misquote itself.
 * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1332921/-The-Al-Gorification-of-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson
 * http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/29/its-not-the-crime-its-the-cover-up/
 * http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
 * http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/03/daily-caller-defends-racist-transphobic-writer/200625
 * http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-is-wikipedia-removing-references-to-neil-degrasse-tyson-misquoting-george-w-bush-127037/
 * http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/
 * https://theweek.com/article/index/268705/earth-to-climate-change-deniers-neil-degrasse-tysons-errors-wont-help-you
 * http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nerd-throwdown-neil-degrasse-tyson-vs-peter-thiel_806088.html
 * http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-science-as-tribe/
 * http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cosmically-dishonest_805319.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/24/what-makes-an-accusation-wiki-worthy/
 * http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/09/whipping-boys-in-america/
 * http://www.inquisitr.com/1505043/americans-dont-trust-scientists-new-research-claims/


 * This is a repeated pattern, not merely a single article by the federalist.
 * I think the two paragraphs are good.Mystic55 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything over two sentences is WP:UNDUE. You should trim your proposal to about 25% of what it currently is. Regards. Gaba (talk)  20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaba, how did you come to the "two sentences" limit, rather than one or three? It's not clear to me that an event that spans over a decade can automatically be summed up in two lines - at least not while being fair to the people involved. Kerani (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Using my better judgement given the sources available as we do usually when editing WP? Not sure what you expected here. "An event that spans over a decade"? The "event" is hardly an "event" at all to begin with and in any case it spans less than two weeks at most. Gaba  (talk)  20:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it - your opinion, not a WP guideline. Tracking now. And (to be sure I understand you completely) your opinion is that this is just about the identification of the misquote, not about how Tyson came to make such an error - and repeat it multiple times - beginning in 2003 (or possibly 2001, when Tyson said he remembers hearing the quote).Kerani (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can quote me a policy that states the precise number of sentences a given statement should have in WP according to given sources, I'll give you the award for WP's most knowledgeable editor in the history of the universe. Of course I used my better judgement according to the sources available (ie: "my opinion" to you) that's what we do around here.
 * And just so you understand me: if you have WP:RSs commenting on "how Tyson came to make such an error" we can discuss its inclusion. Otherwise that is indeed your opinion . Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And failure to include when the incident became significant is also POV by default. It is significant because conservatives made it so. Mystic55 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless this is covered on reliable sources (other than right-wing partisan sources or counter arguments in left-wing sites), it should be left out of the article. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As in IMMEDIATELY removed, despite being added to a protected article before consensus. If it must be included then ALL the data should be included. Mystic55 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to try to reach consensus through edits, I don't have a problem with changing it. If you think that "right-wing partisan sources" or "left-wing sites" cannot be reliable sources then I suggest you reread wp:biased "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."  So while the Federalist may be too new to be considered a reliable source there are others such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, The Christian Post, The Daily Caller.   And no, it should not be "IMMEDIATLY removed" without consensus to do so, if you would like to add "ALL the data" I would like to see that.--Obsidi (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you accurately talked about the incident, but while I agree this needs to be included, I also think you might be putting a bit too much context that is not needed. Lets start with "during prepared remarks", who cares? why is that relevant? Just delete it. The second sentence can almost be eliminated, I don't see it as necessary to explain what occurred. The fact that it was a presentation "which included slides and photos," seems irrelevant and can be removed. The last sentence of the first paragraph also seems unnecessary. The second to last sentence of the second paragraph also seems unnecessary. If you cut all these parts out, I think you will get a lot closer to the proper weight as well, I do believe it should be included but it doesn't have to take up a lot of space. --Obsidi (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Kerani's proposed text looks fine. Its not too long, summarizes the material well and is very neutral in its wording. WeldNeck (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please find consensus for inclusion.  Continuing to reboot a discussion over and over again because you can't find consensus for inclusion is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its clear the consensus is for inclusion . 21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (3ec)Please note the repeated requests to make that opinion known at the RfC not here, which is discussion of the wording appropriate contingent on a decision for inclusion. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support. Failure to include context of the inclusion of the quote in the article is POV. Also, there is no consensus on inclusion of the quote in the above RtC. Mystic55 (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (The RFC is above, not here) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * what context is that ... pray tell. WeldNeck (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to including the quote at all. If we're starting ANOTHER rtc on this thing here, I support the language on this proposal. Mystic55 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This or some similar version thereof. What process do you think is going on? He is trying to find consensus. You object, great. Your viewpoint will be taken into account when consensus is determined. The fact that you (or others) object does not mean that the process being used to determine consensus is not being followed.   In addition to determining if there should be a mention, we need to determine what that mention would be. This section is appropriate for the second purpose.Gaijin42 (talk) 4:56 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * Comment Some of us are getting a bit tired of pretending that this is not what it is. An extremist site, that even the conservatives here won’t call a RS, doesn’t like Tyson. They have told us why in no uncertain terms. He is an atheist, and spreads the doctrines of evolution and climate change. Please consider that the NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, ChicagoTrib, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc have completely ignored this “story”. As has the non-U.S. press. Such long-lived organizations with hundreds of awards know what is newsworthy; which is why WP depends on them and they don’t depend on WP. It appears that WP may fold to pressure from these sites. And that is a shame – because it is an abdication of WP’s responsibility as the most read encyclopedia in the world. Just my opinion and explanation of why some of us are having difficulty with ignoring the elephant. Objective3000 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Such long-lived organizations with hundreds of awards know what is newsworthy Isn't that 'arguing from authority'? Also - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair Kerani (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. Let them froth at the mouth as much as they want, we should abide by Wikipedia policies and the best practices embodied in them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we let them froth at the mouth without letting them keep readding the totally out of context LIE that the misquote isn't being used for character slander in direct violation to WP: BLP? Can we PLEASE reprotect the site? Mystic55 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection change
This article was under full protection through sometime in October, but the protection will expire later today. Many longtime editors will be aware that the change in protection can trigger a number of edits, sometimes triggering a need for further protection.

Given the intensity of feelings about this article, it would be wise to reach a consensus on this page before making any substantive changes. Obviously, I have no authority to insist on this; I am simply sharing that edits made, even if substantial, after discussion on a talk page are less likely to trigger a new protection that several editors falling over each other to make changes and starting an edit war.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We still have a significant number of editors insisting that there be absolutely no mention of this issue in the encyclopedia. That suggests we have a long way to go to reach consensus.  Jimbo is wiser than I am in these cases, and I am not questioning him re-opening the article tomorrow, for he knows the dynamics of the encyclopedia better than I, but I cannot see anything happening tomorrow but continued warring, perhaps eventually leading to Jimbo having to step in further.  That said, I will not edit without consensus, and I hope others will too.  Marteau (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Count me in as one of those "significant" number of editors. This is very clearly yet-another manufactured controversy being pushed by the conservative noise machine.  We have no obligation to add such controversies to Wikipedia, especially to any BLP.  No, this really needs to end, and it needs to end now. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this manufactured? NGT seriously misquoted GWB and implied something that is simply not true.  WP is not here to defend NGT against his own actions.  As a person of science myself, when we run fast and loose with "factual" stories that turn out not to be true, then trust is lost.  Arzel (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that phrases like "conservative noise machine" have no real usefulness in Wikipedia. The only question is whether reliable third party sources have taken note of the controversy, which they have.  It's a significant matter that needs to be addressed in the article in an appropriate fashion. [Addendum: Obsidi's very matter-of-fact and non-editorializing suggest above seems like a good starting point.  It's probably a bit too long but cut down to essentials, it appears to cover the issue fairly.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The "conservative noise machine" or The Republican Noise Machine, however you want to use the term, has a lasting currency and is in wide usage in the United States. The phrase is very useful, as it accurately describes the many manufactured controversies created by conservative think tanks and lobby groups.  If you believe this issue is a "real" controversy that has been discussed in some significant way by reliable secondary sources, I would love to see a single source for this claim.  AFAIK, it isn't a real controversy and it hasn't been discussed as such.  Based on this dearth of independent sources, it does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. Anyone who looks at this problem critically, immediately sees it for what it truly is: a fallacious ad hominem.  "You can't trust Neil deGrasse Tyson on the subject of science because he misquoted George Bush."  I can't see a valid argument for adding this nonsense to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that NGT uses stories to convey misuse of numbers, statistics, and science within his presentations. These stories are presented as actual factual examples.  Count me as one person that fights situations where people don't understand the meaning/difference of Median and Mean; don't understand that 1,000mg is the same as 1g; have a poor or non-existent understanding of probabilities and risk.  I appreciate what he is trying to do, but when you misquote what people say within the context of those stories the very people you are trying to educate lose trust in the message you are trying to convey.  If you don't see this as a problem then I don't think you really understand why this is an issue.  If you actually read what people are saying about this you can see why they think it is a problem.  Arzel (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While there are only 14 scripts in Hollywood, there is still only one script at the Heartland Institute. "You can't trust climate scientists, look at how they predicted global cooling and then misused and altered the data to fabricate global warming!"  We know how the noise machine helps the energy companies frame the narrative, after all they've been doing it for several decades now, and several books have documented it (Merchants of Doubt, Doubt is their Product).  But do you understand how they deliver the manufactured controversy?  They get their unknown operatives (Davis, Tracinski) to write for unknown websites (Federalist) that slip under the funding radar (It must be true, I read it on the Internet).  Then, they get the known opinion bloggers in mainstream sources to comment about the obscure sources to give it an audience (Adler).  And, presto, Tyson's defense of climate science is suspect because he misquoted George Bush.  And this should go in Wikipedia, why? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would appear that it is you that is ranting about GW here. However, if you want to go there, you should not want someone that makes up quotes defending your narrative.  And frankly I think you are upset with the wrong people/person.  Arzel (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel, I can see how it might appear as a rant to someone not familiar with the background. Groups like Heartland have been working with bloggers and other media representatives to character assassinate climate scientists in order to make it seem like climate science itself is discredited.  This has been going on for years. Just as the film Avatar looks awfully similar to Dances With Wolves, so too does the circumstances surrounding climategate look identical to Tyson-gate.  I'm only using these two incidents as an example, as there are dozens to look at, many of which are documented in the books I mentioned up above and similar works so it's very easy to substantiate what I'm saying.  In the climategate event, you had a libertarian conservative blogger (Delingpole) closely connected to Heartland and its operatives, "break" a story about how leaked emails by climate scientists cast doubt on climate science, alleging they "fabricated" data to promote AGW.  Delingpole published his article several weeks before the Copenhagen global climate summit, and it successfully deflected attention from the conference.  Following this same pattern, in 2014, you had several libertarian conservative bloggers (Davis, Tracinski) closely connected to Heartland and its operatives, "break" several stories about how Tyson's grasp on statistics and "fabrication" of quotes cast doubt on "Tyson’s alarmist views on global warming" (Davis).  Davis and Tracinski published several attack pieces on Tyson several weeks before the largest climate change march in history. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Beast, one of the few mainstream sources to take note of this, attributes this controversy to the conservative noise machine and notes that reaction outside of it has been "overwhelmingly dismissive". We should be careful not to over-represent a minority viewpoint on this matter.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that needs to be in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's assuming that it belongs in the article at all, and I don't think it does. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The way to address these nasty, evil products of this supposed "Conservative Noise Machine" is to give proper weight to views, perspectives and information which refute it, not to obliterate it with a "Liberal Silencing Machine".  Marteau (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Week notes that this controversy has had an impact on the climate change debate. Kelly  hi! 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If by impact you mean "nothing has changed", then yes, it has had an impact. BTW, there is no debate, that is a talking point used by Heartland. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Given the intensity of feelings about this article, it would be wise to reach a consensus on this page before making any substantive changes." I very much agree with that.  When the protection is lifted later today, there will likely be a flurry of edits, reversions, reverts of the reversions, etc.  My recommendation would be to leave the article as-is until the RFC runs its course, with perhaps the addition of a sentence stating that Tyson has admitted that he muffed the quote and {apologized} or {said he would apologize} .  We can evaluate further in the light of the RFC results and perhaps more press coverage.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please drop the issue of climate in this discussion? As the sub-head of the Week article says "Tyson has allegedly been caught embellishing anecdotes. And climate change is still real." Not a single editor has proposed mentioning climate science in any way, shape or form. It looks like a straw man argument. Let's return to the issue at hand and determine whether the draft by Obsidi can be trimmed. The issue of whether the incident deserves mention at all is the subject of the on-going RfC. We can craft appropriate language, and when that RfC is closed, that conclusion can be enacted, if it means removal.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no intention of bringing the global warming debate to this page. I was just musing as to whether The Week's analysis of the quote controversies' impact should be included or not. I'm thinking probably not, at least for now, as they are the only RS I've seen that has put forward this interpretation. Kelly  hi! 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why pretend that the elephant isn't in the room? The only reason the misquotes are an issue is because Tyson mocks those who deny Climate Change.  No evidence for noteworthiness has been advocated of inclusion save by sources that also attack Tyson's attitude on AGW.  Not one. Mystic55 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and anyone who took the time to read the sources in question, quickly found Davis and Tracinski connecting the dots for us, with Davis saying
 * "Tyson’s alarmist views on global warming, views which are endorsed by climate models but summarily rejected by reality"
 * Tracinski removes the mask entirely and admits his scheme in the open:
 * "But the point of the whole thing is to write off anyone who even mentions the mysterious absence of global warming as someone who has, in Marvel’s words, “decided to sever all ties with reality” by, you know, mentioning relevant facts. Here we see, in action, the signature scientific style of the Neil deGrasse Tyson era. Present a scientific theory in crudely oversimplified form, omitting any uncertainties or counter-arguments. Pass off complex claims as if they are obvious “basic physics.” Then dismiss any skepticism as the resentment of the primitive, ignorant, unscienced masses against their enlightened betters."
 * So it's all there, right out in the open, with the Heartland Institute sitting pretty behind it all. Anyone who would claim that this isn't about climate change hasn't been paying attention.  This is how climate change denial works: 1) pick a scientist 2) attack the scientist by accusing them of any kind of malfeasance, no matter how small or insignificant.  Since nobody is perfect or faultless, this strategy will work against anyone. 3) connect the malfeasance with climate change science in some way in order to cast doubt on the conclusions. It doesn't matter if the allegations of malfeasance have nothing to do with the climate science, the point is to generate and sow doubt in the science.  "You can't trust scientist X, look at his Y, therefore climate science is a fraud!"  4) collect your paycheck from fake "think tanks" acting as front groups for the energy industry. 5) Profit! Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have to put up with editors trying to drag climate science into this discussion? I don't see any evidence that it has anything to do with the Bush quote, except in the fevered imagination of some who aren't being quoted. It looks to me like an attempt to derail what was an about the Bush quote issue. Please stop.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, you're mistaken. The Heartland Institute is behind The Federalist, which is responsible for manufacturing the criticism against Tyson, almost half of which is devoted to criticizing Tyson's defense of climate change science.  You're trying to pretend that the Heartland Institute, the world leader in climate change denial, isn't attacking Tyson because of his defense of climate change, and his promotion of climate change science on Cosmos.  The facts say otherwise.  You're also neglecting the fact that Heartland has a long, documented history of attacking scientists on this issue, and all of the major players behind The Federalist  are working with the Heartland Institute.  Further, you've attempted to isolate the so-called "criticism" of the Bush quote from the larger context, which includes climate science deniers from Heartland and creationists from the Discovery Institute combining their efforts on The Federalist website to attack Tyson.  Therefore, your statement,  "I don't see any evidence that it has anything to do with the Bush quote" is demonstrably false and it can be refuted easily: on The Federalist website, Robert Tracinski directly links their coordinated attack on Tyson to climate change denial.  And he's not the only one who is using this manufactured controversy to attack climate science; Discovery Institute's writers are using it to attack evolution.  Tracinski pulls out the doubt card when he writes
 * "No, Tyson misquoting Bush does not directly imply that global warming isn't happening...But when the whole public case for global warming is based on a supposed consensus among climate scientists, whose judgment we are supposed to trust, then we need to know: could these scientists and their public advocates actually admit it if they were wrong? If some new evidence—say, increasing Antarctic ice, or a 17-year plateau in surface temperatures—contradicted their theory, how eager would they be to own up to it? In that context, it is precisely the relative unimportance of the Tyson examples that makes them so worrying. If a correction has to be pulled out so unwillingly on such a small issue, and if so many people are willing to tolerate a little factual inaccuracy so long as they agree with the overall narrative, that only gives you a flavor for how unwilling they are to budge on the bigger issues."
 * So it's all there, Sphilbrick, and there's lots more where this comes from. It's the same "discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt" that we've come to know and love from Heartland. It's not a coincidence that all of this is coming from The Federalist, which is run by Heartland operatives. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sphilbrick "Do we have to put up with editors trying to drag climate science into this discussion?" It's already part of the discussion. Salon writer Peter Finocchiaro has observed that some of the people attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson hold fringe views regarding climate science. And more recently, Raw Story weighed in on the same topic:


 * "There is a cottage industry, scarcely larger than a hamlet, of conservative writers and self-declared ‘influencers,’ whose goal du jour is to take down astrophysicist and popular really really smart guy Neil deGrasse Tyson. [...] For the most part conservatives were fine with Tyson when he stuck to talking about space and black holes and other otherworldly stuff. But this past year he stuck his toe into the climate change non-debate and you would have thought he wanted to sex up a Duggar daughter, such was the umbrage. And so it came to pass that Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist with Ben Domenech, came up with what he believes is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s gotcha moment. [...] The whole point is that Davis is trying to diminish and discredit Tyson, a popular scientist and public intellectual, before he starts to expand his influence and does damage to those who have a vested interest in dismissing climate science..."


 * Viriditas is only articulating what is already common knowledge to science historians and anyone else who has been paying attention for longer than a few weeks. — TPX 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "it's all there" = Conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, we do not accuse Wikipedia editors of being part of any paid conspiracies without having evidence to back up such assertions.  Kindly provide your evidence.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What the heck are you talking about, Collect? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect, "Climate change denial" is the conspiracy, and it's actually classified as a conspiracy theory. Pointing out that groups like Heartland are behind this, is not a conspiracy.  I suggest you do a bit of research before commenting here again. There are dozens of examples in the academic journals, books, and papers documenting these repeated attacks on climate scientists and people like Tyson who support it.  These attacks are not a "conspiracy", it's a documented fact.  Furthermore, this is a uniquely American phenomenon; the rest of the world does not "doubt" or question climate science, it's only in the US, where energy lobbies run disinformation campaigns against scientists, that we find it to be a problem.  In the rest of the world, climate science is generally accepted and not under constant attack like this.  Part of the problem is that the American media has been infiltrated by energy-funded "think tanks" (really lobby groups for coal, oil, and gas) who promote a false balance on the subject to make people think there is an actual "debate". Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand those that wish to have the accusations against Tyson included without the background. Thefederalist ran thirteen (13) articles attacking Tyson on this one misquote, and many attacks against him before that. They have made it clear their reason is that he supports climate change, evolution, and is an atheist. To demand that we include an accusation without the background behind the accusation doesn’t pass the smell test. An honest rendition of this incident shows that thefederalist is grossly exaggerating something as a part of a vendetta (at minimum) and that Tyson made a goof. Not that Tyson is a “serial fabulist” as claimed by this blog. An encyclopedia should not be used in such a manner. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

'Negative Proof' logical fallacy
The blatant negative proof logical fallacy inherent in the comment rationale of this edit is a breathtaking assault upon reason. -- The onus of proof is upon those who make positive claims (e.g., "Prove to me that Bush said that!"), not their detractors. If the quote cannot be found, then it does not matter if there are no sources *at all*. The simple fact of the matter is that Tyson has (repeatedly) made an incendiary claim which has never be verified.--Froglich (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been on wikipedia for 8 years and I don't think I've ever seen a sillier, more pointless debate than the one above. Tyson misquoted - and slandered, potentially - George W. Bush. So? If Mr Bush doesn't like it, there are remedies! THAT would warrant inclusion on this page, not some trumped-up "gotcha!" by some who obviously have an agenda here. My observation as a relatively neutral Canadian who is only dimly aware of who Tyson is (I've seen him host Nova and I know he was in the new version of Cosmos), is there seems to be an agenda here to vilify Tyson himself, for reasons which are not immediately obvious, even if one loves Mr. Bush. In fact, the attacks against him are bizarrely over the top.


 * But what for me is odd is it seems no one else here has bothered to find out what in fact Bush said, if anything. Some have identified the similar quote after the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster, but not much more than that. Those who attack Tyson are correct, as far as can be discerned: Bush didn't say the exact words Tyson quoted him as saying; When Bush said similar words, it was in an entirely different context than 9/11; Bush at that time made no mention of Muslims or Islam.


 * However, this notwithstanding, Bush in fact made an amazingly ignorant statement in 2003 (though, to be fair, it was much more likely his speechwriter - maybe fellow Canadian David Frum - who wrote the words) while eulogizing the seven dead astronauts and making an obvious nod to the Israeli astronaut who was among those who died (the first and only person from that country to fly in space). He in fact DID imply that the God of the Bible - he quoted Isaiah 40:26 from the Old Testament - named the stars, when in fact the vast majority of named stars were named by Arabic (mostly Muslim) astronomers.


 * Bush: "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.'


 * "The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."


 * So, while Bush made no mention of Muslims or Arabs, he nevertheless insulted their legacy by giving credit elsewhere to their achievements. It's sorta like the insult many British felt when Hollywood gave credit to American sailors for cracking the Enigma code during WWII in the film U-571. While the film didn't directly denigrate the British by stating they didn't do it, by giving credit to others for what they achieved, they insulted them, much like Bush did in his statement.


 * I am quite sure that many Americans would feel insulted if, say, some British politician hailed the achievement of the British Empire in "saving" France by launching the Invasion of Normandy during the same war, while completely ignoring the rather substantial contribution (!) made by the Americans. In other words, the premise by some attacking Tyson that if Bush didn't directly insult Muslims/Arabs by naming them there was no "insult," is demonstrably false.


 * So, while it is correct that Tyson quoted words from Bush that he never said, Bush nevertheless, while innocent of DIRECTLY insulting Arabs and Muslims, nevertheless insulted them. It would, therefore, be more accurate to say that while Tyson misquoted Bush and the context in which he said similar words, Bush did give credit to others while ignoring the Arab/Muslim achievement.


 * As I pointed out, however, I seriously doubt Bush himself came up with the idea of quoting Isaiah, it was likely a speechwriter trying to best Reagan's "face of God" quote after the Challenger disaster, with a rather limp result. Canada Jack (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of logical fallacies, that rambling dissertation takes top honors for non sequitur. Quoting Canada Jack: "I've been on wikipedia for 8 years and I don't think I've ever seen a sillier, more pointless debate than the one above. Tyson misquoted - and slandered, potentially - George W. Bush. So?" -- So? It's notable when a public figure (as Tyson certainly is) repeatedly (this has been part of his lecture repertoire for years) slanders (your term) a former leader of the nation. As far as naming the stars goes, I'm everybody was naming stars. I.e., I'm sure the Chinese would very much like that everyone adopt their preferred names. But let's be honest here: the big-time naming of stars (and nebulae and galaxies) didn't begin until telescopes were pointed at the heavens -- and that happened in Europe, not Dar al Islam.--Froglich (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying one should deliberately misquote Isaiah - who is revered by Muslims as a prophet?   That would be exceedingly strange - changing the words of a prophet in order not to offend a group which reveres him as a prophet!  Hard to imagine any Muslim viewed citing Isaiah as an "insult."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of words from Canada Jack, some quite speculative, but the bottom line, to quote Canada Jack, it is correct that Tyson quoted words from Bush that he never said. That's the nub.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The silliest thing about Canada Jack's post is that he apparently thinks that when Bush quoted Isaiah 40:26 to the effect that God "brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name" that he was somehow insulting Muslims by misappropriating the process by which Betelgeuse came to be called Betelgeuse. This literalist interpretation is of course exactly the way Tyson took it, which should be as embarrassing to him as anything else about this episode. Andyvphil (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What amazes me to no end, is to see editors dismissing a pretty good argument with non-sequiturs. What Canada Jack is saying, merits a much better argument that the pretty poor responses above. One needs to learn when a debate is lost and acknowledge their opponents for their wit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He thinks he's a pig on XD tonight
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/518519134943203329

Well this is Tyson and an easy to check fact, so he's wrong. Is his voice on the Disney (not XD) channel notable? Hcobb (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking serious? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG this is super important stuff. It deserves a stand-alone article. The-great-tyson-pig-disney-quote-controversey. Don't delete anything or Entertainment-tonight will run a piece on how wikipedia is censoring Tyson-movie-quote fabrication allegations. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014
(Neil of Grasse Tyson)

108.181.73.227 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That's not his name... — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected request
wikilink “Type Ia supernovae” to Type Ia supernova -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another way of think about this
Everyone here seems to be operating under the belief that including some mention of this material is "bad" for, or an "attack" on Tyson, but there is another way of thinking about it. By excluding metnion of this affair, we are in effect hiding Tyson's response. If, for instance, someone comes across the original Federalist article, how would they go about finding Tyson's reply? How would they know to look for a paragraph in the middle of this one particular facebook post? One really common way to get the straight story on this sort of this is Wikipedia, but we are going out of our way to deny our readers the ability to find out the whole story. Lets say, for instance, that a few years down the road some 16 year old kid sees Tyson speak, and goes to Facebook or a message board or something saying like "Tyson is really great, and i want to be like him when i grow up". Now lets imagine (and i know this is far fetched *snick*) that on this board or Facebook, there is someone who wants to be an ass because they get off on being an ass, so they post a link to the federalist article and are all like "Tyson is a liar and wont own up to his mistakes" and so on. I think in this circumstance its fairly reasonable for the afore mentioned kid to come here to try and find out the truth. Thats fairly likely because this is one of the top sources of information in the world. But, if we exclude any mention of this deal, that kid would be unable to learn that Tyson doesnt work from notes or prepared speeches. That the misquote is accidental and that, yes, he did get the quote wrong but that he did the right thing in admitting it and apologizing. All of that reflects well on Tyson, not poorly. Heck, if you guys want to include mention of the belief that this is all a great right wing conspiracy, lets talk about edits, but in suppressing all mention of this incident, you are actually helping Heartland, The Federalist, and everyone who wants the world to think that Wikipedia is left biased. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Concern Troll sounds really concerned. Glycerinester (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If your opposed, fine, but dont call me a troll. Bonewah (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "...Tyson doesnt work from notes or prepared speeches." -- Actually, he does repeat prepared speeches, and used the invented Bush "quote" (and even more egregious misinterpretation of the Biblical usage of "names") in exactly the same way many times. What he said on Facebook seems to be intentionally misleading on this point. Andyvphil (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil has the right of it here - at least as far as Tyson's "misquote" being anything but an off-the-cuff remark. I would say with malice aforethought but I am not The Shadow who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.Kerani (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling it "invented" doesn't make it invented. Speculating as to why it might be fabricated doesn't offer evidence that it was fabricated. Without a shred of evidence or a clear history of wilful manipulation of quotes...any claim that the quote was made up is guesswork. That it is made up or fabricated is not an obvious conclusion. That's pretty heavy stuff to put into a BLP based on conjecture and supposition. --Shabidoo | Talk 10:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, failure of verification makes "invented" a very likely supposition. The.federalist attempted (to a greater or lesser degree of success, depending on ones political stance) to provide clear evidence of a history of manipulations of quotes.  That the Bush quote did NOT say what Tyson originally claimed it did is NOT guesswork - it has been alleged by multiple sources, confirmed by Tyson, and and is not subject to debate at this point. It is not conjecture nor supposition.Kerani (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not exclude this information to spite The Federalist, et al, but we should also not include it because we are worried what The Federalist, et al think about Wikipedia. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This has more to do with making information available to those you need it. My point in mentioning Heartland et al, is that this sort of thing doesnt just go away because we choose to exclude it. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Who the fuck needs to know this??? and 2) we dont need to be participants in the preservation of such crap.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, someone unfamiliar with this affair who wants to find out all the facts. Just because we dont say anything about it doesnt make it go away. 2) Does such crap include Tyson's response? Thats my point here.  Bonewah (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, do you have access to any good biographical indexes? The reason I ask is if you review them and look at how biographies work, you won't find trivia like this anywhere.  You can get access from Wikimedia to the Oxford Bibliographies if you request it.  I can point you to other indexes as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Im no stranger to BLPs, i know how this works. WP:NOTPAPER and all that.  If you think his response is trivial, then, what can i say, we are back to the undue weight question. Ive already said that i feel Tyson's response tips the undue weight question in favor of inclusion, but i totally understand why people dont necessarily agree with that view.  Im just trying to get people to think past the 'This is an attack on Tyson' mentality and understand that, attack or not, Tyson's response is important.  Bonewah (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the concept of biographies, and how they exist external to Wikipedia. NOTPAPER doesn't give us carte blanche to insert trivia, it's just a reminder that we can allow for more depth and coverage.  Is that the case here?  And, how does Tyson's response on his Facebook page even come into play here?  Again, find a good, solid FA or GA biography that has trivia like this.  You won't. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For an alternate view to some who question "who needs to know this" - I've found this interesting information. I think how people handle their mistakes is interesting - it's been asserted that nobody is perfect, everyone misspeaks, and this is true. But not everyone has such a big platform, so that when they are critical of a president (who he actually dealt with personally), it provokes a response from others and eventually comes back to provoke a response from said person with a big platform. Not everyone has an article on them in Wikipedia. That's the case here, where we are talking about an undoubtedly notable person, who made comments about another undoubtedly notable person, which proved to be inaccurate, got some flak, and then warranted a response. Everyone makes mistakes, even acclaimed scientists. You can take from it what you will, but I think it is interesting.
 * Maybe you don't find it as interesting as I do, and I couldn't fault you for that. There is a great deal on Wikipedia which doesn't interest me very much either right now. Yet while I might not delve too deeply into articles about - for instance - the modern line of Ford pickups, it is very plausible that someone would, so I am glad Wikipedia contains information about them and would never argue against it. Maybe, that Tyson's experience with Sagan helped show him the type of man he wanted to be, isn't interesting to some people. Yet it is very plausible that it would interest someone who wants to gain some context and insight into Tyson.
 * None of this is to say nothing can be trivial, absolutely things can be trivial. I would guess at some point, someone asked Tyson for the time and he incorrectly answered either due to a slow/fast watch or a misreading. It is no coincidence that there are no articles at all about this, that he has never addressed this issue on facebook with an apology, that his critics were never lambasted by Salon for reading too much into his misstating the time. But something doesn't need to be life or death information, in order for it to not be trivial and included.
 * Biographies of living people are held to a high standard - as it says in a nutshell: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." This is partly due to laws about slander and libel. There are strong warnings in WP:BLP against repeating rumors and gossip, or using negative tones so as to make it an attack page. This is not to be construed as to mean there can never be negative things said. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There is no dispute about there being an error made, as Tyson has confirmed it and apologized. It is in no way a rumor or gossip, it is not disputed by Tyson or by the critics who urge it should not be overstated. It would be improper to use the incident in a way that is framed as an attack, but seems exactly like the sort of information which can help give a greater context to him if it is presented in a neutral and responsible way (for which there have been some good suggestions above). Chester Lunt (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this an important or significant aspect of Tyson's life? Note, it isn't. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't argue that the article should lead off with "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysisist who became involved in a quote controversy in 2014." Nor should the article lead off with "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysisist who won a gold medal with the University of Texas dance team at a national tournament in the International Latin Ballroom style." Or "who collaborated with Goldsmith as the narrator on the documentary 400 Years of the Telescope, which premiered on PBS in April 2009." Or "who delivered a lecture entitled Skepticism, which related directly with the convention's theme of The Democratization of Information: Power, Peril, and Promise." Or "who during the interview 'Called by the Universe: A conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson' in 2009 said: 'I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.'"
 * I could go on choosing other parts of this article, which - to be clear - I am not in any way arguing should not be included in the article itself. But they are not appropriate in the first sentence, or even really appropriate in a prominent placement in the first few paragraphs. Yet they help to build a context for him as a person, and there is room for this information within the body of the article, presented in a reasonable, neutral - and verifiable - way.
 * Truly, I think you ask the wrong question here. The most important, essential things to someone's life should naturally be prominent. But not everything in a biography is something that would fit onto a top 10 or even top 25 list of the things you must know about a person. If we were discussing what should be included in a list of top 25 things for people, for a wiki version of "sparknotes," I'm sure we'd be having a different discussion. Or even if this were all about, should it be included in the first couple paragraphs. But to argue there is no place here at all for the story is something very different entirely. Chester Lunt (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in 2012 the mis-used quote was #9 on a list of "Badass NdGT quotes." While I don't think Mental Floss is a signficant tracker of...well, much of anything, it is something of a sign of what people at the time thought was important. Kerani (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An alternative/additional consideration: the discussion of this incident could (should?) reference scientific misconduct, politicization of science or source criticism, and quite possibly all three. Tyson's role as a prominent science communicator (as opposed to a political figure who is advocating policy) changes, I think, how this incident is thought about (at least for me it does.)Kerani (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quit being logical.:) While I think this makes sense -- the can of worms that would be opened would keep this discussion alive (and unpleasant) until half of us died of old age. Objective3000 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. You say that like it's a bad thing. (Really, I'm kicking myself for not formally bringing up source criticism before - it's a specific problem with science literature & communication - making sure your supporting documents actually say what you claim they say.)Kerani (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the other half being the coordinated effort by some to discredit scientists because they, well, believe in science. Look at the attacks on Tyson before this incident by the same 'sources' criticizing him for his lack of belief in deities and how that invalidates his theories. This is one of the herd of elephants that you may bring out. Mayhaps correctly. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, heh - I'll leave alone the "coordinated effort" by some, and simply point to believing in science being the problem. (If they were being attacked for practicing science, that would be something else.  But Tyson is no more a life scientist than I am an astrophysicist, and so I think his pov on evolution is as relevant as mine on the Big Bang.  It's good to have opinions.  Everyone should try it.  If they don't have any of their own, I have plenty and will be glad to share with any who ask.)  And while this is largely completely outside the scope of the article - science depends on asking questions regardless of what answers you may get.Kerani (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Another way of looking at this. We could always blame Bush for appointing him lol Chemical Ace (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiritual views sourced only to YouTube
I cut some information on his views about spirituality and race that were sourced only to YouTube, which is not a reliable source. Looking through the article, we will probably have to cut quite a bit of information that is poorly sourced to YouTube or to self-published sites, and are not backed up by major mainstream news organizations. Kelly hi! 11:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored with original video sources in addition to or in replace of the YT videos. Some YouTube links restored as they are to videos in official YT channels, allowed under WP:RSE. In future, may I suggest that you not make such huge removals as it makes it more difficult to fix. Objective3000 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources are certainly usable, within some specific constraints, per WP:SELFPUB -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote pulled from YouTube is a violation of WP:OR. There is no RS to establish that quote as notable in the least.  I find this highly ironic given that both of you are fighting against the inclusion of material actually sourced to RS's.  Arzel (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a biography. These are interviews by respected sources of the subject of the biography talking about himself. Objective3000 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel, see WP:SELFPUB. Providing it meets that criteria, we are good. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are both missing the point. Who says that this quote is notable?  You are in violation of original research.  Arzel (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the information Kelly removed is notable and relevant on the subject of science and religion. While you might personally believe this material is not notable, I think most people do.  Furthermore, I think we know the real reason Kelly removed this.  It's because it says, "Tyson has argued that many great historical scientists' belief in intelligent design limited their scientific inquiries, to the detriment of the advance of scientific knowledge." Frankly, that is considered an uncontroversial statement in the civilized world.  I've just about had it with the climate science deniers and creationists waging war on this article. It's time to lock this puppy down. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said it right there, "I think", ergo original research. I can watch the same video and put in what "I think" people think is important and put it in there and it would be the same problem.  I thought I told you that I am not a creationist, so that argument has no weight against the point I made.  Furthermore I noted that this stuff was problematic long ago.  Arzel (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand. This is a biography of a scientist who is a well-known speaker and often speaks on the issues related to clashes between science and religion. Why wouldn’t his biography include his own words on the subject? Indeed, didn’t this entire discussion start because of a quote related to the intersection of science and religion? Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It may not be relevant to his overall story.  Viriditas said: "While you might personally believe this material is not notable, I think most people do."  It doesn't matter what  Viriditas  or any other editor here things is notable enough, what matters are do reliable sources think it is important.  A youtube video of him saying it is enough to verify that it is accurate, but it is not enough, by itself, to suggest that it is important without reliable sources.  Even if  Viriditas think that "most people do" think it is important, what "most people" think isn't important, only reliable sources.--Obsidi (talk ) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You folk seem to be getting hung up on YouTube. YT is not the source. It is simply the medium. The sources to these YT videos are: PBS, Tyson's own blog at The Hayden Planetarium, the University of Buffalo, The Science Network, The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Center for Inquiry Objective3000 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Its true that University of Buffalo, The Science Network, and The Howard Hughes Medical Institute hosted speeches/interviews with him. That is relevant for his notability. But a specific answer given is not noteable just because he gave it while during a speech at the University of Buffalo, or in response to an audience comment at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Now if there was some kind of story written by a WP:RS about the response, or what he said during the speech that could totally make it important enough to include. As is, we don't have sources for that, and we should start to pare back these extra parts that haven't been commented on by WP:RS as WP:UNDUE. (Tyson's own blog, cant make it noteable, needs some other 3rd party WP:RS). --Obsidi (talk ) 19:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to understand the difference between a biography and a news event. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would think this does not belong in a biography. Many of those awful blogs that some editors claim are RS make mention of his religious beliefs, in a derogatory manner. Why shouldn't his own personal statements on the subject, elicited in interviews with reliable sources, be included? If it's unimportant, why did PBS (a real network) and these other sources ask the questions in interviews? We finally have something from an actual network, and that isn't enough? Objective3000 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add, biographies contain info like wife’s name, kids’ names, parents’ names and vocations, grade school attended, other personal stuff. You are not likely to find these in the NYTimes. That’s because it’s a biography, not an article about a news event. Personal info belongs in bios and, though it should be verifiable, it need not be proved notable by a third party RS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An opinion of a blog about his religious beliefs would be VERY unlikely to be included (for multiple reasons, probably not a RS as it is a blog, probably not significant, potentially liable depending on how derogatory it was). PBS is a reliable source, but they cant possibly know what his answer will be before he gives it.  As such it cannot possibly indicate that the answer to the question is important until after he gives his answer.  If PBS writes a story about how he answered a question or does something to indicate that the answer is important, that would be relevant.  Neil Tyson can't make an answer important, only reliable sources commenting on the answer can do so.


 * As to the second, yes there are some things (like birth date), that are not important to reliable sources, but are included in basically all bio's (see MOS:BIO for some). Are you really trying to say this comment is the kind of thing included in every bio?  If not then it needs some justification from a WP:RS as to its importance.  --Obsidi (talk ) 21:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious justification is that it keeps coming up, in source after source, attack blogs, interviews, his own blog, speeches, it is a continuing theme with Tyson. If you look at the WP articles on Carl Sagan and Isaac Newton two of Tyson's listed influences, you will extensive sections on religious views. This is hardly unusual in a bio. Objective3000 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to reference RS commenting on the quote or other thing you wish to include and I wont have a problem with it. (if it is just attack blogs, it might not be important enough as they might not be RS, blogs without publishing or editorial boards are not RS usually). Also if you look at the pages about Carl Sagan and Isaac Newton, you will see their views are documented in reliable sources, as such the problem I am talking about does not apply.  Maybe we should just bring this to the NPOV noticeboard (weight issues fall under NPOV), I bet this kind of thing crops up in a variety of articles, where you have a televised interview by a RS but without RS stories about the answer.  --Obsidi (talk ) 22:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have videos of Newton. The sources are listed and reliable. And, what source is more reliable on a person's views more than the person? Go right ahead and take it to whatever board you want. Waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not a question of WP:VERIFIABILITY clearly they are his views. Its a question of WP:WEIGHT, how important is this view of his to the overall story of Neil Tyson, and we cant answer that without a WP:RS commenting on it. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're appealing to the "verifiability guarantees inclusion" error again. Again, see WP:ONUS.  We don't have to "answer" it or include a link to Facebook. We've already discussed this extensively. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you got it exactly backwards, I am arguing that it SHOULDN'T be included as there are no WP:RS talking about the Tyson's answer, so you argument for WP:ONUS is actually in my favor (although also a specious and incorrect argument as this is about WP:WEIGHT not WP:BLP as everyone concedes it is verifiable). This has NOTHING to do with Facebook (it has to do with a youtube video and no other WP:RS talking about it). --Obsidi (talk ) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of RS about Tyson's remarks on science and religion, and I believe we already have some in the article. Please do some research. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't talking about those, its talking about the ones that link to a youtube video and no other WP:RS has mentioned. --Obsidi (talk )00:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but this is simply not an honest characterization of the situation. It is not a YouTube video. It is many videos that happen to be on YouTube that originated with reliable sources. Vastly more reliable than the sources that editors are trying to use to add denigrating content. You simply do not understand that this is NOT an article about a news story. Religious views are extremely common in bios. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it doesn't matter that content is sourced to YouTube. What matters is the type of source on YouTube. I see people still have a problem with this distinction. In other words, "don't use YouTube" is supposed to mean "don't cite some guy on the Internet". Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been referred to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here: --Obsidi (talk ) 05:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I said as much there, but to repeat what was also said here, it doesn't matter where the video is hosted if it shows the primary source saying something in plain English. No analysis needed. Trying to figure out what Richard Dawkins has to do with it requires more analysis than I had time for, so replaced him with "University of Buffalo" in the lead-up to the quote, and removed a picture of an interview we don't mention from the edge of the quote. Not sure about your screen size, but that ruined it (which doesn't matter as much as the irrelevance). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed the discussion on NPOVN and came and read the relevant section. I fail to see what all the hubbub is about.  What Tyson said there is consistent with other views expressed in the section.  He is agnostic - meaning he doesn't know if there is a god or not - (and he explicitly says that he doesn't care much) and this quote is just a reason why belief in a benevolent god doesn't make sense to him.  What is at stake in this argument? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The claims should be sourced to secondary reliable sources - not to any YouTube video of whatever provenance as long as such other sources exist. IMHO, the sentence at issue is not a credo of any sort, but rather what he felt was an amusing view about religion.  Simple solution. Collect (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what you mean by “whatever provenance”. It is on the University of Buffalo YouTube channel. As for secondary source, it is in Atheism for Dummies here.  Your opinion about the quote doesn’t matter. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * yes indeed it is. that should lay this to rest. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

what is at stake here?
really, gang, I don't understand what is at stake. why does it matter to folks if the quote is in or out? please explain. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just that WP should not be deciding what is important. It leads to original research.  The now included source is a nice addition to establish weight.  Arzel (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry but that is not an answer to the question. on the face of it, the quote is pretty innocuous, at least to me. from my perspective, either the editors working on this article have become so bitter and entrenched that they are spending scads of pixels fighting over something stupid, or there is something actually at stake.  your answer leads me to believe it is the former.  unless, that is, you can articulate some reason why the quote itself matters. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the quote appears to say essentially nothing about his actual personal beliefs at all -- it seems rather in the normal course of trying to make a joke during the course of a serious talk as much as anything.  The specific term "beneficent God" is specifically  and primarily Qu'ranic in origin.  The God of Israel is described as wrathful and easily angered.  The Christian God is not described as "beneficent" to the world in the New Testament, but only as forgiving those who ask to be forgiven, which is a far cry from "beneficent" in general.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you didn't include any WP:OR.:) rgds, Objective3000 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR would refer to contents of any edit to an article. It does not apply to my comments above, which refers to the general use of "beneficent" by any religion, any more than my showing Google counts would be.  I trust you will reread that policy. (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research  ''(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.))Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. Objective3000 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am not saying the quote matters. I just noticed some time ago that there was quite a bit of this article sourced only to YouTube.  This implied that WP editors were taking the role of reporters and reporting what they think was important from the YouTube videos.  I was never personally judging the importance, or lack of importance of that quote.  Personally, I do think it is better without the quote in blockquote form.  Arzel (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that removing the blockquote was an improvement. Objective3000 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, so there was a bad trend on this page of sourcing things from youtube, and this became a kind of stake in the ground over that. i understand that, that is a bad trend.   happily the "dummies" provided an orthogonal way out of this dispute. whew! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)